Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?

[Kythia]

Some religions produce ideologies that are explicitly peaceful (peace as in peace by our contemporary English understanding of the word, not as in 'salaam') - Jainism in particular holds it as a core tenet (Ahimsa).

And yet, even Jainism has had its share of brutal theocrats.  We've had violent animal rights people, violent slavery abolitionists, eco-terrorists, etc.  I agree - trying to frame the excesses of theocratic governments as an issue with religion rather than an issue with people takes a whole load of justification.

[Sheoldred]

Ideologies develop in the absence of religion, also. When you hold an opinion that cannot be swayed by new knowledge. This is a very difficult position to drag yourself out of if you're in one, and it comes in all forms. In the US, we have left-wing and right-wing ideologues whose positions do not involve religion in any fashion, and yet, people will die because powerful people buy into their bullshit. Mao's China, the British and Mongol empires, and the Soviet Union are all particularly egregious examples.

But cases of Buddhists and Jainists being hateful are fairly rare and isolated. Cases of people related to Judeo-Christian traditions hating on the LBGT community are alarmingly common. Even in my country, and my country is known as one of the least religious countries in the world. I don't remember there being anything violent in the Tripitaka, for example, but feel free to correct me. Usually it is the parents who are to blame but if there's something as concrete as a holy book to lean upon then I think people become even harder to sway. It's not 'the' problem but it contributes regardless.

As for ideologies that aren't religious then from a more neutral perspective they dont' seem all that different from religions. Look at the USSR, they used to hang pictures of Lenin and some people in fact even prayed to him. They used to make children compose poems of him as if he were a deity. Despite Communism not being classified as a religion people very well behaved as if it were one.

If you've read 1984 by Orwell, try replacing Big Brother with 'God' and the mysterious party with a priesthood that holds all the secrets. Nothing changes.

What I'm trying to get at is the question; is there a fundamental difference between an ideology and religion at its worst? People fiercely loyal to either behave very similarly. Religion could also be seen as an ideology, a set of ideas meant to be followed. Aspect of belief is present in non-religious ideologies, such as believing communism is the best way of life or that your football team is the best and if they lose then that certainly means the other team cheated or something.

[Vekseid]

And yet, even Jainism has had its share of brutal theocrats.  We've had violent animal rights people, violent slavery abolitionists, eco-terrorists, etc.  I agree - trying to frame the excesses of theocratic governments as an issue with religion rather than an issue with people takes a whole load of justification.

That link does not say what you think it does - the Shaivist (Hindu) was the brutal one, and the king wiped out the Jains by impalement after his conversion back to Hinduism.

To top it off, you linked to a myth.

The Sword of Islam is not a myth, and there does not exist a more brutal religious fanatic, save perhaps Hitler, and even then Timur has him beat in terms of percentage of the world population and raw legacy. Though if you put any stock in Tamerlane's Curse, there is that also.

[Kythia]

That link does not say what you think it does - the Shaivist (Hindu) was the brutal one, and the king wiped out the Jains by impalement after his conversion back to Hinduism.

To top it off, you linked to a myth.

No, I'm sorry, I'm afraid you've misread this.  From the article I link:

The Pandyan King converted to Jainism and became a Jain fanatic, forbidding his Queen Mangayarkkarasiyar to even wear Thiruneeru on her forehead. Having converted the king, the Jain monks started to wield greater power in the kingdom. Hindus in the kingdom suffered persecution and indignation. The Queen feared that if left unchecked, the spread of Jainism would wipe out Shaivism entirely from Madurai.

It was the Jainists who did the persecution.  Yes, the one you link says the opposite but explicitly flags:

However, this legend is not found in any Jain text, is believed to be a fabrication made up by the Saivites to prove their dominance

[sic]

The story I originally link to though is found, amongst other places, in a devotional poem which is certainly not a "myth" - even if not every aspect of it is 100% accurate. 

This gives more details and even mentions in passing a similar version of the legend told in your link except the Jainists are the ones doing the killing (though it is a little short on specifics on it) as an example of the general class of myth your source refers to.

[Vekseid]

No, I'm sorry, I'm afraid you've misread this.  From the article I link:

It was the Jainists who did the persecution.  Yes, the one you link says the opposite but explicitly flags:

Vague, unspecified persecution being framed explicitly as the justification for the later impalement of eight thousand jains. Only mentioned in Shaivite propaganda, and as your link states, the Jains don't accuse them of the story being accurate, and non-Shaivite Hindus dismiss it as absurd.

The story I originally link to though is found, amongst other places, in a devotional poem which is certainly not a "myth" - even if not every aspect of it is 100% accurate. 

The entire account you referenced is completely mythical. It involves magical healing, the Jains engaging in a wager that Hindu historians themselves state the Jains would never do, and there is no contemporary evidence for the events - Jainist and other texts pass from the 6th to the 8th centuries with not a mention of eight thousand of their number being killed, or any other evidence besides.

You might as well trust the Romans and Greeks about Carthage.

This gives more details and even mentions in passing a similar version of the legend told in your link except the Jainists are the ones doing the killing (though it is a little short on specifics on it) as an example of the general class of myth your source refers to.

The story is not found in any Jain source, the Jains evidently know nothing about it; and so do not accuse the Shivs of this massacre. The Hindu historians on the other hand are at pains to prove the absurdity of the story by such arguments as that (1) the Jains would never enter into a wager where if they won they would have to kill human beings, (2) the king would not permit 8000 of his innocent subjects to be killed; (3) the Jain learned men continued to compose important works on grammar and lexicography in Mandurai itself even after the alleged incident. Among these works are cited the sendan Divakaram a Tamil dictionary of Divakara; the Neminatham and Vachchamalai, two Tamil grammars by Gunavira Pandit, etc. Lastly, if all the Jains of Madurai were massacred in the 7th century, there would not be, as we have seen earlier. A concentration of Jains in the same area in the 8th and 9th centuries.

The truth of the matter is that such stories of the annihilation of one sect by a rival sect, were a common feature of Tamil literature in those days. These were required to prove the superiority of one's own sect above that of the other. In fact in one such story a Jain king of Kanchi gave the Buddhists a similar treatment, and in another the Vaishnava apostle Ramnuja treated the Jains similarly by instigating the Hoysala king Vishnu Vardhana against them.30 Hagiography need not be taken as history.

I.e. this crap was often written centuries after the period claimed and is not generally considered historical.

[Kythia]

Vague, unspecified persecution being framed explicitly as the justification for the later impalement of eight thousand jains. Only mentioned in Shaivite propaganda, and as your link states, the Jains don't accuse them of the story being accurate, and non-Shaivite Hindus dismiss it as absurd.

The entire account you referenced is completely mythical. It involves magical healing, the Jains engaging in a wager that Hindu historians themselves state the Jains would never do, and there is no contemporary evidence for the events - Jainist and other texts pass from the 6th to the 8th centuries with not a mention of eight thousand of their number being killed, or any other evidence besides.

Mmmm, I'm sorry, I obviously phrased this badly.  There is no mention of 8,000 Jainists being killed because that did not happen.

To recap and hopefully make my point a little better.

1) I post a link to an account of Jainist atrocity
2) You say no, it was the Jainists being killed and post a quote: "That link does not say what you think it does - the Shaivist (Hindu) was the brutal one, and the king wiped out the Jains by impalement after his conversion back to Hinduism."
3) I say no it wasn't and post related links
4) You point out there is no evidence of Jainists being killed.

We seem to be agreeing here: your source about Jainists being killed is not accurate.

I.e. this crap was often written centuries after the period claimed and is not generally considered historical.

Errrrm.  Sorry, but it actually is generally considered historical.  There's quite an interesting read here which is arguing for a less "historical" view of it, but even then doesn't think it is myth.  From page 2:

A lasting legacy of the Periyapurāṇam is that modern scholars have tended to read it as an actual history of the period that accounts for the elimination of Jainism,

[Vekseid]

Mmmm, I'm sorry, I obviously phrased this badly.  There is no mention of 8,000 Jainists being killed because that did not happen.

To recap and hopefully make my point a little better.

1) I post a link to an account of Jainist atrocity
2) You say no, it was the Jainists being killed and post a quote: "That link does not say what you think it does - the Shaivist (Hindu) was the brutal one, and the king wiped out the Jains by impalement after his conversion back to Hinduism."
3) I say no it wasn't and post related links
4) You point out there is no evidence of Jainists being killed.

We seem to be agreeing here: your source about Jainists being killed is not accurate.

They're the exact same source!

Your claim is that the Jains were doing bad things, which justified the impalement of eight thousand jains by the shivs.

My claim is that it has no historical value whatsoever. Not the impalement, not the supposed vague persecution that occurred beforehand, not the miracle-boy's healing ability.

Errrrm.  Sorry, but it actually is generally considered historical.  There's quite an interesting read here which is arguing for a less "historical" view of it, but even then doesn't think it is myth.  From page 2:

You couldn't even be bothered to finish reading the sentence?

A lasting legacy of the Periyapurāṇam is that modern scholars have tended to read it as an actual history of the period that accounts for the elimination of Jainism, not only from an influential place in the royal courts but also as a substantial Tamil community, contrary to other literary, archaeological and inscriptional evidence.

Written five centuries after the period in question, the article you linked calls it out for what it is - a Shaivite anti-Jain polemic.

[Kythia]

They're the exact same source!

Your claim is that the Jains were doing bad things, which justified the impalement of eight thousand jains by the shivs.

My claim is that it has no historical value whatsoever. Not the impalement, not the supposed vague persecution that occurred beforehand, not the miracle-boy's healing ability

That's not what we do when we do history though.  Take claims about English monarchs being able to sure scrofula.  We don't discount sources that include that, we simply look at each claim and take what is likely to be true.  Look at the legends surrounding Charlemagne, for example.  We don't discount every source about Charlemagne that has clearly supernatural elements because we'd have very little left if we did.  Primary sources are biased, thats a thing we know and have the tools to address.  There's nothing to suggest that the impalement was true (or the healing, but thats neither here nor there) - that doesn't necessarily say anything about other aspects.  We don't throw Bede out because of the miracles, we throw Bede's miracles out and take what's left.  We check sources against other sources and keep the bits that gel up.

The impalements probably didn't happen.  We agree on that.  Your extrapolation to "nothing in there happened" is clearly not justified.

You couldn't even be bothered to finish reading the sentence?

Written five centuries after the period in question, the article you linked calls it out for what it is - a Shaivite anti-Jain polemic.

Well, yes.  I kinda do specifically mention that.  I state, in as many words, that the article is arguing for a less historical view of the piece but - and the reason I quoted it - is because your claim that its generally not viewed as historical is not correct.  It is, otherwise there would - obviously - be no need for someone to argue that it shouldn't be.  I didn't quote the second half of the sentence for that reason: the point I was making was pace your assertion that it wasn't generally viewed as historical.  The very existence of the article shows that thats not the case. 

EDIT:  Going to bed now, I did just want to add one thing I've just been thinking about.

There are loads of places on the internet where disagreeing with the Admins, Mods, etc. would be a straight out bannable offence, where that wouldn't be tolerated.  It never occurred to me to tiptoe round you and, regardless of whether one of us ends up convincing the other or not I just wanted to flag up a "thank you" for making, encouraging and sustaining E in being the sort of place where that never even occurred to me as a concern.

[Sheoldred]

But are there any readily available historical sources on the internet that prove/disprove Quran's version of history? Specifically the parts that explain the more controversial verses.

[Euron Greyjoy]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

The mileage of the above statistics may vary, but if they are correct and reliable the majority of the Muslim population support Sharia law, honor killings, and terrorism. So the fact Islam is or isn't a peaceful religion doesn't matter. What does matter is what the followers believe in. While most may not go out and commit acts of terror, it doesn't mean they aren't funding or otherwise supporting terrorism.

[WildCat]

I am a Christian. I would not want to be lumped in with the horrible things that far too many self-proclaimed Christians cry out for.

[Oniya]

Speaking from a purely statistical point of view (my degree is in Mathematics), I couldn't help noticing that the site tended to put the most negative spin possible on the stats.  If a given poll answer gave a low number for a 'bad' (nonpeaceful) answer, it was still stated as 'X% support this bad thing', while anything under 50% for a peaceful answer (even if it was equal to or higher than response in favor of the 'bad' answer) was stated as 'only X% support this good thing'.  This leads me to suspect a certain amount of bias on the part of the people presenting the statistics.

Also, the domain is registered through GoDaddy out of Arizona.

[Valthazar]

Even though the site Euron linked is of dubious quality, many of the statistics are from Pew surveys - which are reliable.  The reputable statistics from that page include the following:

That "only 57% of Muslims worldwide disapprove of al-Qaeda. Only 51% disapprove of the Taliban.  13% support both groups and 1 in 4 refuse to say. Source

26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
Source

15% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
34% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified. Source

[Oniya]

And I could easily state those same results to give a positive spin.

85% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are rarely or never justified.
78% of young Muslims in Germany don't believe suicide bombings are justified.

I'm not making any sort of call on the raw numbers - just the way that the website's authors choose to present it.  The Pew survey analysis from the source that you linked seems to take a more neutral approach, providing all of the response percentages even when they don't match some predetermined slant.

[Euron Greyjoy]

Speaking from a purely statistical point of view (my degree is in Mathematics), I couldn't help noticing that the site tended to put the most negative spin possible on the stats.  If a given poll answer gave a low number for a 'bad' (nonpeaceful) answer, it was still stated as 'X% support this bad thing', while anything under 50% for a peaceful answer (even if it was equal to or higher than response in favor of the 'bad' answer) was stated as 'only X% support this good thing'.  This leads me to suspect a certain amount of bias on the part of the people presenting the statistics.

Also, the domain is registered through GoDaddy out of Arizona.

That certainly  is a inherent  problem with statistics, they can be manipulated to favor certain biases.

[Oniya]

As Mark Twain once said - there are three kinds of falsehoods:  lies, damn lies, and statistics.    Presenting all the data like the site Valthazar linked to allows the reader to see how the conclusions were reached - such as the part where large majorities of Muslims are concerned about the rise of Muslim extremism around the world.  (Last table at Val's source).  Just above that table is a section on whether suicide bombings are justified, and the highest response from each country falls in the 'Never' column.  The aggregate of 'Rarely' and 'Never' responses tops 50% in each division as well - although it is a slim majority among Shiite Muslims in Lebanon.  80% of Pakistani Muslims said they were never justified.

[Vekseid]

That's not what we do when we do history though.  Take claims about English monarchs being able to sure scrofula.  We don't discount sources that include that, we simply look at each claim and take what is likely to be true.  Look at the legends surrounding Charlemagne, for example.  We don't discount every source about Charlemagne that has clearly supernatural elements because we'd have very little left if we did.  Primary sources are biased, thats a thing we know and have the tools to address.  There's nothing to suggest that the impalement was true (or the healing, but thats neither here nor there) - that doesn't necessarily say anything about other aspects.  We don't throw Bede out because of the miracles, we throw Bede's miracles out and take what's left.  We check sources against other sources and keep the bits that gel up.

...we're not discussing a primary source. We're discussing a source written five centuries later when primary sources are in fact available to us. None of which corroborate said source.

More than that, you're happy to toss out the most well-detailed atrocity, and the miracles, but you want to keep the accusation of jainist persecution. This is a faith that holds non-violence as a core tenet - as I said, peace as in peace as we understand the word, not as in submission/salaam. Claiming that they have fallen to violence requires something more substantial than a claim made five centuries later, and it says something if this tale is the best you can find.

The impalements probably didn't happen.  We agree on that.  Your extrapolation to "nothing in there happened" is clearly not justified.

There is no reason to accord it any more weight than we trust tales of Daqin as a credible source on Rome. It'd be one thing if Chinese history was all we had to go by, but thankfully, the Romans left their own tales, as had the residents of 7th century Tamil.

Well, yes.  I kinda do specifically mention that.  I state, in as many words, that the article is arguing for a less historical view of the piece but - and the reason I quoted it - is because your claim that its generally not viewed as historical is not correct.  It is, otherwise there would - obviously - be no need for someone to argue that it shouldn't be.  I didn't quote the second half of the sentence for that reason: the point I was making was pace your assertion that it wasn't generally viewed as historical.  The very existence of the article shows that thats not the case. 

The study of history is filled with works that have fallen out of favor as sources. That isn't really new.

[Lilias]

Actually, in Greek law it's illegal to criticize the Orthodox Church.

a) Criticism =/= blasphemy, which is what is punishable by law.
b) Even if you do manage to fall foul of the blasphemy law (which is quite hard; the last such case was in 2003, and the appeals court reversed the verdict), the worst you'll get is two years in prison, not a fatwa.

Perspective. We haz it.

[Beorning]

BTW. I just read on one news site that a young atheist in Egypt has just been sentenced for three years in prison for admitting that he's an atheist...

I really would like to get some comment on this from Muslims here on E, as I really don't know what to think here... 

[Ephiral]

a) Criticism =/= blasphemy, which is what is punishable by law.
b) Even if you do manage to fall foul of the blasphemy law (which is quite hard; the last such case was in 2003, and the appeals court reversed the verdict), the worst you'll get is two years in prison, not a fatwa.

Perspective. We haz it.

I'm not sure you get to claim that you have perspective because you only imprison people for three months because they "lack respect" for an entity they don't think exists.

[Kythia]

More than that, you're happy to toss out the most well-detailed atrocity, and the miracles, but you want to keep the accusation of jainist persecution. This is a faith that holds non-violence as a core tenet - as I said, peace as in peace as we understand the word, not as in submission/salaam. Claiming that they have fallen to violence requires something more substantial than a claim made five centuries later, and it says something if this tale is the best you can find.

Sorry, just so I'm clear, because I suspect I've misunderstood you here. 

I read that as you saying "Jainism holds not being violent as a core part of the religion, therefore it is unlikely they have ever been violent Jains."  Is that what you meant?  Because, well "Judaism holds not murdering as a core part of the religion therefore it is unlikely they have ever been murdering Jews" certainly doesn't work as an argument.  Would you mind rephrasing that slightly, because at the moment, as I say, I suspect I don't understand your position.

[Lilias]

I'm not sure you get to claim that you have perspective because you only imprison people for three months because they "lack respect" for an entity they don't think exists.

The punishable act is offence towards the public, which is a very real entity. It is not that different from the civility rule we have in place right here.

[Vekseid]

Sorry, just so I'm clear, because I suspect I've misunderstood you here. 

I read that as you saying "Jainism holds not being violent as a core part of the religion, therefore it is unlikely they have ever been violent Jains."  Is that what you meant?  Because, well "Judaism holds not murdering as a core part of the religion therefore it is unlikely they have ever been murdering Jews" certainly doesn't work as an argument.  Would you mind rephrasing that slightly, because at the moment, as I say, I suspect I don't understand your position.

Judaism is largely an ethnic religion - there is a culture wrapped up in hundreds of religious laws and taboos, one of which is 'do not murder except by command of the Lord'.

To be a Christian, you must acknowledge that Christ is savior. To be Muslim, you must acknowledge that Muhammad is the Prophet. To be Jain, you must ascribe to Ahimsa - nonviolence towards all living beings. It is the absolute core tenet to the faith, superceding even the need for truth.

This is a group of people who have evolved the ability to generate their own vitamin B12 to support their extreme brand of veganism. They view harming even insects as a wrong.

Have there been violent jains? Possibly. Self defense is considered acceptable and the lay believers are held to less stringent codes. That said, there are no atrocities perpetrated in the name of Jainism. You're not going to find another major religion free of this, and some have caused more unjustified violence than others.

[Ephiral]

The punishable act is offence towards the public, which is a very real entity. It is not that different from the civility rule we have in place right here.

The translation I keep seeing for Article 198, section 2 is "manifesting a disrespect for the deity". Can you provide a more accurate one?

[DarkAngel111]

Judaism is largely an ethnic religion - there is a culture wrapped up in hundreds of religious laws and taboos, one of which is 'do not murder except by command of the Lord'.

To be a Christian, you must acknowledge that Christ is savior. To be Muslim, you must acknowledge that Muhammad is the Prophet. To be Jain, you must ascribe to Ahimsa - nonviolence towards all living beings. It is the absolute core tenet to the faith, superceding even the need for truth.

This is a group of people who have evolved the ability to generate their own vitamin B12 to support their extreme brand of veganism. They view harming even insects as a wrong.

Have there been violent jains? Possibly. Self defense is considered acceptable and the lay believers are held to less stringent codes. That said, there are no atrocities perpetrated in the name of Jainism. You're not going to find another major religion free of this, and some have caused more unjustified violence than others.

Jainism Also believes in Raudradhyana That is for those who don't know, Killing off all beings that are not Happy. Jainism believes if people are not Happy, they are full of sin and therefore should not be allowed to live. In general, it is mandatory to kill them because that is the only way they will go to hell and suffer for their sins then be reborn a better being.

So Jainism in other words supports killing of anything that is not happy. Although I am not fully sure who determines that, but its a pretty messed up logic if everyone who was sad was killed off....It is said that if you kill such beings (animals or warms or humans) you are eradicating their sins, and it is a approved.

Now I am left to wonder, how is it that they believe in Ahimsa?